Invisible minimalism
-
Ana Falcato
Ana Falcato received her PhD in Philosophy (with a specialization in Logic and Philosophy of Language) from the New University of Lisbon in 2011, was a Humboldt Research Fellow at the University of Mainz, Germany, from 2013 to 2015, and is currently an FCT post-doctoral researcher at IFILNOVA, the New University of Lisbon.
Abstract
This essay attempts a rapprochement between Kent Bach’s view on semantic minimalism and the most radical version of contextualism about language on offer: Charles Travis’s occasion-sensitivity. Despite common assumptions held by defenders of semantic literalism – which cast Bach’s proposal as a form of contextualism – Bach rejects all conceivable forms of contextualism. In this paper, I argue that in spite of his systematic rejection of contextualism, Bach’s position bears a striking resemblance to Travis’s occasion-sensitivity. Further, when analyzed in light of the conceptual framework developed by Travis, Bach’s strand of minimalism can be shown to contain a deep-rooted conceptual inconsistency to the extent that he aims to ascribe “pure semantic content” to a linguistic entity that is necessarily pragmatic.
About the author
Ana Falcato received her PhD in Philosophy (with a specialization in Logic and Philosophy of Language) from the New University of Lisbon in 2011, was a Humboldt Research Fellow at the University of Mainz, Germany, from 2013 to 2015, and is currently an FCT post-doctoral researcher at IFILNOVA, the New University of Lisbon.
References
Austin, J. L. 1961. Philosophical papers. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1994. Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language 9(2). 124–162.10.1111/j.1468-0017.1994.tb00220.xSuche in Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1999a. The semantic-pragmatics distinction: What it is and why it matters. In Ken Turner (ed.), The semantics-pragmatics interface from different points of view, 65–84. Elsevier: Oxford.Suche in Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1999b. The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22(4). 327–366.10.1023/A:1005466020243Suche in Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 2001. You don’t say? Synthèse 128(1/2). 15–44.10.1023/A:1010353722852Suche in Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 2005. Context ex machina. In Zoltan Szabó (ed.), Semantics vs. pragmatics, 15–44. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199251520.003.0002Suche in Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 2007. Regressions in pragmatics (and semantics). In Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics, 24–44. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_3Suche in Google Scholar
Cappelen, Herman & Ernest Lepore. 2005. Insensitive semantics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.10.1002/9780470755792Suche in Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 2001. Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0199246297.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
García-Carpintero, Manuel. 2006. Recanati on the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Crítica: Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía 38(112). 35–68.10.22201/iifs.18704905e.2006.466Suche in Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Kalish, Donald. 1967. Semantics. In Paul Edwards (ed.), The encyclopedia of philosophy, vol. X, 348–358. New York: Macmillan.Suche in Google Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1989. Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives. In Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, 481–564. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1970. General semantics. Synthèse 22(1/2). 18–67.10.1007/BF00413598Suche in Google Scholar
Travis, Charles. 2006. Insensitive semantics. Mind and Language 21(1). 39–49.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230334.003.0007Suche in Google Scholar
Travis, Charles. 2008. Occasion-sensitivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230334.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
©2017 by De Gruyter Mouton
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Invisible minimalism
- Representing ordinary people: experiential interview fragments in CCTV News
- Who is the victim? When the addresser of the echoed utterance and the target of the irony differ
- Patient participation in action: patients’ interactional initiatives during interdisciplinary goal-setting meetings in a rehabilitation clinic
- A rose is more than a rose … the diatextual constitution of subjects and objects
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Invisible minimalism
- Representing ordinary people: experiential interview fragments in CCTV News
- Who is the victim? When the addresser of the echoed utterance and the target of the irony differ
- Patient participation in action: patients’ interactional initiatives during interdisciplinary goal-setting meetings in a rehabilitation clinic
- A rose is more than a rose … the diatextual constitution of subjects and objects
